Isn't that the strategy you've been advocating for the past four years?
As far as a Congressional election strategy goes, it may well work. However, if it does work in '06, what effect will it have on Deomcratic prospects in '08? It seems to me that the only way such an argument can hold water is if Republicans retain control of one house of Congress, most likely the House. After all, if divided government the reason for giving Democrats control of Congress (I know you restricted your comments to the Senate, so the problem isn't as apparent.), doesn't it undermine the Democrats' attempts to gain control of both Congress and the White House in '08?
On a purely practical note, what reason is there to believe that putting Democrats in control of Congress would lead to more fiscal responsibility? Part of the reason it worked in the '90s is that Republicans were bound and determined to cut spending in certain areas and President Clinton didn't want those areas touched. President Bush, on the other hand, has shown no commitment to fiscal responsibility and has expressed a desire to work on a bipartisan basis. It therefore seems more likely that spending would go through the roof as Bush's lack of fiscal restraint combined with his desire to accomplish things on a bipartisan basis would lead to ridiculaous increases in spending as anyone and everyone had his favorite program funded.
Also, fiscal conservatives split with the Bush Administration long ago. The only reason there haven't been any practical political consequences is that all of the alternatives at this point seem worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment